Leo,
I am very late in joining the discussion and will only be able to attend the summit by conference call, but I have 2 use cases I could add as needed but may have waited too late.
First use case is the CDC National Tuberculosis Surveillance System which we built for the CDC and has been live in production for 2 years this month without downtime or error. It is based on OWL ontology and OWL to JESS rules. It performs HL7 V2 message construct validation, Terminology resolution, and decision support to detect and classify normal, non-resistant TB from Multi-drug resistance or Extensive Drug Resistance categories.
The major point of this use case is that we were asked to upgrade to a new version of the Message with only 7 days till go live. We were able to accomplish this because of the ontology driven nature of the application which meant only modifications to the ontology needed to be mad and no source code rewritten, so we accomplished this in 4 days and went live on time and on budget. This would have taken at least 2 months (CDC estimate) to rewrite the existing application we replaced.
The Second use case is the NCI (National Cancer Institute), CDISC (Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium), and HL7 (Health Level 7) BRIDG model (Biomedical Research Integrated Domain Group), a global Pharma, Clinical Research and Clinical Care domain analysis model.
This model is built on UML but has an HL7 Version 3 RIM (Reference Information Model) as a more refined and detailed interpretation. We have a middle layer of an OWL ontology that relates the UML to the RIM model and validates and classifies new class and attribute additions to the model. It uses SKOS to mitigate the differences in granularity between the models and uses an OWL to JESS reasoning application to classify new additions to the model and adjudicate discrepancies between model additions and both layers of the model.
Both of these are active, long deployed applications that are global in nature so may be helpful to make the case for Ontology. If they are helpful and not too late I can flesh them out a bit more as needed. Of course if I have waited too long accept my apologies and discard them.
Thanks
Cecil
Chief Knowledge Engineer
OntoReason, LLC
916-412-5504
Assistant Professor
Pathology Informatics
UC Davis School of Medicine
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Obrst, Leo J.
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 7:59 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit 2011 Symposium Agenda and rules
Ok, folks, a slight update:
Thanks,
Leo
All,
Please note that the following rule (the “Fabian Rule” as we are calling it from last year, named for our colleague and co-organizer Fabian Neuhaus) will be in effect during the Symposium for discussion on the Communique. This will help us avoid disruptions, argumentation over trifles, and improve the quality of our discourse.
Any participant of the Ontology Summit can submit by email change requests or raise questions for debate at the workshop until the deadline of Saturday evening, 6 pm EDT, April 16, 2011. This is prior to the Ontology Summit Symposium.
After the deadline, a new change request/question can be only raised if it is supported by at least 3 participants of the Summit.
Leo and Ram’s addendum: We will strictly enforce a time limit on the discussion per issue.
As previous Ontology Summit old-timers will recall, much of our time was spent wordsmithing. Unfortunately (or fortunately), we don’t have time for that. Having an overview of the open issues prior to the Ontology Summit Symposium allows the organizers to plan/adjust the agenda and the discussion moderators to ensure that all issues are addressed. Please note that the first day of the Symposium is devoted to the Track champions’ reports and the Communiqué discussion. The Communiqué will be final at the end of the first day.
Thanks, and we look forward to seeing (or hearing) you all at the Symposium Monday!
Ram and Leo